2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-13-2005 

# U SA v . W all a ce P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 02-2746

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . W all a c e " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1028. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1028NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT 

### N o s. 02- 2746 /03- 3840 /04- 1939 

### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. CL AREN CEWAL LA CE ,

Appe l l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 02- cr - 00197- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R . B ar cl aySur r i ck Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 6, 2005 B efor e: A M B R O , ST A PL E T O N and A L A R C Ó N *, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J une 13, 2005 )

OP I NI ON

* H o n o ra b le A rth u r L . A lar c ó n , S e n io r U n ited S tate s C irc u it Ju d g e f o r th e N in th C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge O n Ju n e 1 4 , 2 0 0 2 , A p p e llan t C lar e n c e W a llac e w a s c o n v icte d b ya ju ryo f m u lti p le fede r al cr i m es s t emm i ng fr om hi s par t i ci pat i on i n t he arm ed r obberyof tw o banks . A ft er uns ucce s s ful l ypur s ui ng var i ous pos t - convi ct i on m ot i ons , W al l ace w as s ent ence d t o 960 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm entand fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e and or der ed t o m ake re s titu tio n in th e a m o u n t o f a p p ro x im a te ly $ 2 6 ,0 0 0 – th e u n re c o v e re d lo s s to th e b a n k s . A ft erhi s s ent enci ng, W al l ace m oved pr o s e underFed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) ( 3) forr el i ef f r om t he j udgm entof convi ct i on beca us e of f r aud on the D i s t r i ctC our t . I n t hi s pos t - s ent enci ng m o ti o n , W all ac e re asse rt ed a v arietyo f a rgu m en ts al rea d yrejected b ythe D istri ct C o u rt and i nt r oduced a ddi t i onal t heor i es of r el i ef. T he C our tpr oper l ydeni ed thi s m ot i on for l ack of j ur i s di ct i on. W al l ace appea l s hi s convi ct i on, the deni al of pos t - convi ct i on r el i ef an d the d en ial o f h is po st- sen tenc ing m o ti o n sty led u n d er R u le 60 (b). W al l ace ’ s appoi nt ed couns el on appea l has fi l ed an A nder s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw as couns el , as s er t i ng t hatal l pot ent i al gr ounds forappea l ar e fr i vol ous . W e cons i derthat m ot i on her e, and fort he r eas ons gi ven bel ow gr anti tand af fi r m W al l ace ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . I. U nderA nder s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , i f couns el “fi nds [a] cas e t o be w hol l yfr i vol ous , aft era cons ci ent i ous exami nat i on of” the ca s e, s /he mustadvi s e the C o u rt o f th is f in d in g a n d re q u e st p e rm iss io n to w ith d ra w f ro m th e c a se .” Id . at 7 4 4 . T h is3

r eques tm us tbe ac compani ed by“a br i ef r efe r r i ng t o anyt hi ng i n t he r ecor d t hatm i ght a rg u a b ly su p p o rt th e a p p e a l,” id ., “ e x p la in to th e c o u rt w h yth e is s u e s a re f ri v o lo u s ,” U n ited S tate s v . M a rv in , 2 1 1 F .3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ), an d in so d o in g d e m o n stra te th a t s /h e h a s “ th o ro u g h ly sc o u re d th e re c o rd in s e a rc h o f a p p e a la b le is s u e s ,” id . a t 7 8 0 . A c o p yo f c o u n se l’s b rie f

m u st b e f

u rn ish e d to th e a p p e llan t, w h o m u st b e g iv e n tim e to r ai s e non- fr i vol ous ar gum ent s i n a pro se b rie f. A n d e rs, 3 8 6 U .S . at 7 4 4 ; T h ird C irc u it L A R 1 0 9 .2 (a ) ( 2 0 0 0 ). W e “ c o n f

in e o u r sc ru tin yto th o se p o rtio n s o f th e re c o rd id e n tifie d b ya n a d e q u a te A nd ers bri ef . . . [and ] tho se i ssues r ai sed i n A pp el l ant’ s pro se br i ef. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Y o u la, 2 4 1 F .3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). W e g ra n t a c o u n se l’s A n d e rs m o tio n to w i t hdr aw i f “a ful l exami nat i on of al l of the pr ocee di ngs , ” A nder s , 386 U . S. at744, s how s “thatt he att or neyhas pr ovi ded the cl i entw i t h a di l i gentand thor ough s ear ch of the r ecor d foranyar guabl e cl ai m , ” M cC oyv. C our tof A ppeal s of W i s cons i n, 486 U . S. 429, 442 ( 1988) , and w e conc l ude “thatthe appe al l acks anybas i s i n l aw orfac t , ” i d. at438 n. 10. “The C our t ’ s i nqui r y. . . i s t hus tw ofol d: ( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed t he rul e’ s r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s any nonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” Y oul a, 241 F. 3d at300. II. A s w e w ri te s o le ly f

o r t h e p a rt ie s , w e n e e d n o t d e ta il th e f a c ts o f th is c a s e . W all ac e’s c o u n sel h as id en ti fied as p o tential g rou n d s fo r ap p ea l ( 1 ) th e D istri ct C o u rt ’sW e con cl ud e t hat coun sel has m ethis ob l i gati on s und er A nd ers . 1 4 re jec tio n o f

W a llac e ’s ju rytam p e rin g a rg u m e n t, (2 ) th e C o u rt’s la c k o f ju risd ictio n to cons i derW al l ace ’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, ( 3) al l eged pe r j urybythe FB I cas e age nt , ( 4) t he s uffi ci encyof the t es t i m onybyt he coope r at i ng defe ndant s , ( 5) the fa i l ur e of the G overnm entt o furni s h B r adym at er i al , ( 6) the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s part i ci pat i on i n t he d ec isi o n w h ethe r t o ca ll W all ac e’s so n as a w itn ess, an d (7) the d en ial o f W all ac e’s oppor tuni t yt o be pr es entats i debardur i ng the voirdir e of pot ent i al j ur or s . C ouns el has th o ro u g h lya d d re ss e d e a c h o f th e se a rg u m e n ts, d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e ylac k a n yb a sis in la w o r f a c t. T h e G o v e rn m e n t, in tu rn , h a s re v ie w e d a n d e n d o rs e d c o u n s e l’ s a n a lysis . 1 L as t l y , w e not e thatm os tof thes e ar gum ent s w er e addr es s ed on thei rm er i t s atl eas tonce byt he D i s t r i ctC our tand r oundl yr ej ect ed. A s t he G overnm entpoi nt s out , “W al l ace has , i n num er ous l ett er s t o t he di s t r i ct cour tand thi s C our t , i n compl ai nt s t o t he baras s oci at i on, and i n hi s m ot i ons , m ade fac i al l yabs ur d al l egat i ons t hatgovernm entcouns el , the ca s e age nt , and hi s tr i al couns el ar e ‘ corruptl aw handl er s ’ i nvol ved i n t he cr eat i on of evi dence and the s ubor nat i on of p e rju ry . H e c laim s th is ‘c o n sp ira c y ’ to su b v e rt ju stic e w a s a id e d b yp o st-tria l co u n se l, appel l at e couns el , and, appar ent l y , even the tr i al j udge. ” I n fac t , i n a D ece m ber2, 2004 or der , w e des cr i bed a l i t anyof cl ai m s l evi ed byW al l ace agai ns thi s appel l at e couns el as “conc l us or yand uns ubs t ant i at ed, ” i ndeed “ fant as t i c and pa t ent l yfr i vol ous . ” In this vein, w e turn t o W al l ace’s pro se b ri ef in su p p o rto f h is ap p ea l. A s w e a re5

unabl e t o extr actanym eani ngful l egal ar gum ent s , w e ca n onl yconcl ude thathe has fai l ed to d e m o n s tr a te th e e x is te n c e o f n o n f ri v o lo u s a p p e lla te a rg u m e n ts . W e th u s a f

f irm W a llac e ’s c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e a n d g ra n t co u n se l’s m o tio n to wi t h d r a w.